SB_Eagle

Gotcha. I misunderstood you as them wanting to do something brand new like LDS.

I'm not doubting you, but is there a source on this?

Do what's best for your Pack. Sounds like your execs are seriously micromanaging and they need to be told that.

A few years ago, I was in pretty much the same situation: New Tiger Den Leader after being OA brotherhood in my youth, lodges merged since then. OA was some of my best memories and I just wanted to support the current lodge, even if it was just the yearly fee. They probably had a record of me, but I really had to dig to find my ordeal and brotherhood dates in order to list them on the lodge membership form. I wear the lodge flap, the Cubs are intrigued by it. I sometimes help out the troop, so I guess it seems more 'appropriate' now.

Great news. Good to see all four were on their feet during the rescue, hope they make a full recovery soon.

You are completely out of line with this post. Conservatives supported the right to vote for women and blacks amongst strong democratic opposition. Democrats still only pretend to care about all women and minorities just so far as to gain votes, and as long as they don't have their own opinions against the party line. This is about preserving a program dedicated to helping boys, and we have just told boys in the BSA that they are no longer a priority and that they are undeserving of their own program.

You've been rocking it with the memes lately...

Reminds me of all the Chuck Norris jokes... Chuck Norris has a bear rug in his tent. The bear is actually alive, but it's just too scared to move..

Sales from licensed dealers have to go through the paperwork process and background process no matter where the sale is made. Out-of-state sales (such as through the Internet) have to be done through a dealer in the buyer's state, through the paperwork and background process. As for private sales, it is illegal to sell to a prohibited person. In most of these events, the background check system already in place failed due to the lack of input from governmental agencies. In the case of the recent Florida shooting, law enforcement failed repeatedly at every single level both before and during the event, while policies are in place to prevent protecting against these events.

I'll explain again. No matter how you view or want to view the wording or meaning of 'well-regulated' or 'militia' in the first clause, you are attempting to evaluate the JUSTIFICATION clause as if it were the OPERATIVE clause, which clearly recognizes the already existing 'people's right to bear arms' and states that it 'shall not be infringed'. I view Duty to Country as being LOYAL to it and the original legislative framework and that includes understanding how and why they were written, and to defend it from those who wish to enjoy what liberty provides them while criticizing the methods by which it is defended. I read a news story this morning about how the South Africa’s parliament has overwhelmingly voted in favour of a motion that will begin the process of amending the country’s Constitution to allow for the confiscation of land without compensation. It is witnessed that their government uses brutal tactics against the landowners, including murder. They have no Second Amendment to protect their right to defend what's left of their liberty. Historically, this is the direct end result of extreme policies being pushed even here in the United States.

Thank you

You misunderstand what 'well regulated' means in the Second Amendment. The first 'well regulated militia' clause explains the reason of the second 'right to keep and bear arms' clause. Regulated meant 'proficient in the use of arms' as written at the time. The 'militia' are all able-bodied persons. In no way does it or has it ever meant to be a right regulated by any congress. None of the Bill or Rights limit or seek to regulate citizens' rights, only recognizes and limits governments' ability to limit citizens' rights. The Federalist Papers No. 29 and 46 along with Supreme Court case DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago are good places to start in order to better understand this. It has been repeatedly reaffirmed that armed self-defense is a fundamental right that shall not be infringed upon, no different than any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights.